It seems obvious enough to me that if the highest court in the U.S. allows corporations to impose their (conservative Christian) religious beliefs and anti-sex views on their employees that this wouldn't end well for the gays, but apparently there are some incredibly naive people who think the decision is just peachy because Justice Alito included a paragraph saying that this decision shouldn't be interpreted to allow racial discrimination.

Of course, it's unclear how the logic behind the opinion draws a line at anti-gay discrimination, and sexual orientation and gender identity don't have anywhere near the protections under the law that race or color do (one appellate court decision finding that sexual orientation is a quasi-suspect class status vs. multiple Supreme Court decisions affirming that race is a suspect class), but Alito would never put a paragraph in a decision if he wasn't 100% sure it was true, right? Oh, wait...

I was brought up on The Next Generation and Deep Space 9, with their expansive universes and decent graphics departments, so The Original Series is a lot of campy fun. Like in the pilot episode, a comm officer tells Captain Pike "We have an incoming transmission" and then an index card pops out of a slot in the wall. We can travel faster than the speed of light, but, goddammit, we're sticking with paper until that "computer monitor" fad ends!

I just got to the "Charlie X" episode, where the Enterprise picks up a 17-year-old boy who was the only survivor of a crash-landing when he was 3. He's been living alone (or was he?) ever since, so he needs to learn how to interact with other humans. Seven of Nine without the skin-tight onesie, if you will.

Anyway, at one point he observes two crewmen talking about how they're going to hang out later, and then witnesses a butt slap. Seriously, I had to rewatch the scene because, well:

Crewman #1 (holding futuristic repair equipment): I'll put the equipment away and I'll see you in the rec room, huh?

Crewman #2 (already walking towards the door): You got a deal, friend! (Turns back to Crewman #1, slaps his butt, and then walks out the door)

It was obvious and awkward enough to be the Chekhov's gun of butt slaps, and you don't have to wait long for it to be fired. Charlie slaps the butt of a yeoman he finds attractive after she offers to meet him later, and she gets mad and tells Charlie to ask Captain Kirk about the complexities of butt slapping. Here's Kirk's priceless explanation:

There are things you can do with a lady that, uh... Listen, there's no right way to hit a woman. Man-to-man is one thing, but man and woman, it's a, well, it's another thing.

Thanks, Cap'n! Men can touch each other's asses so long as we can tell ourselves that there's some violent motivation involved.

So now I'm left wondering if butt slapping was really so common among men in 1966 that they could simply not imagine a future without it. Like a producer saying, "Sure, aliens with green blood and no emotions are fine, but no butt slapping? Our audience will never accept that, it's just too ridiculous."

Or maybe this was simply a writer's fantasy: "One day people of all races will work together to explore the galaxy. And there will be man-on-man butt slaps. Enough so that star ship captains will have to explain the practice to outsiders."

In case it's not entirely clear, I'm very much in favor of consensual, nonsexual man-on-man butt slapping.

They all certainly were defending Brendan Eich just a few weeks ago. Some, in a strange reverse exercise of "hate the sin, love the sinner" act, even this week.

[...] Is being racist not acceptable, but being anti-gay acceptable?

Indeed, that's one way to look at the disparity. On this site, Dominic L. Auci blames the gays for some weak activism that's left people with the impression that homophobia is OK. Personally, I think gay people are far less responsible for homophobia than anyone else is, but the point is the same: you can't say the n-word without being sent into therapy, but if you use the f-word repeatedly and violently, some people (even gay people!) will defend your right to a political show on the supposedly progressive cable network.

During the conference, the Rev. Cesar Truqui, an exorcist based in Switzerland, recounted one experience he had aboard a Swissair flight. "Two lesbians," he said, had sat behind him on the plane. Soon afterward, he said, he felt Satan's presence. As he silently sought to repel the evil spirit through prayer, one of the women, he said, began growling demonically and threw chocolates at his head.

Asked how he knew the woman was possessed, he said that "once you hear a Satanic growl, you never forget it. It's like smelling Margherita pizza for the first time. It's something you never forget."

Obviously, if you're "silently" praying to repel demons, then that prayer should be loud enough to be understood by the people sitting behind you, even over the noise of jet engines. Anything less and the demons might not settle for EasyJet next time.

Alex Blazehttp://www.bilerico.com/2014/05/chocolate-throwing_demonic_lesbians.php
http://www.bilerico.com/2014/05/chocolate-throwing_demonic_lesbians.phpLivingWed, 14 May 2014 10:00:00 -0500http://www.bilerico.com/2014/05/chocolate-throwing_demonic_lesbians.php#commentsWhere Are Gay-Friendly Prop 8 Supporters Hiding?
.center { text-align: center; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; display: block; float:none; }
]]>"I'm not homophobic I just support homophobic policy" is the new cri de coeur of the religious right. I just posted about Conor Friedersdorf's claim that people might just be really, really concerned about the definition of the term marriage but harbor no ill-will for non-straight people, and now Mike Huckabee just said that he's not homophobic, but the Bible defines marriage.

Again, if the right is trying to convince us that it's possible to oppose same-sex marriage without being homophobic, they can't seem to find an example of someone doing just that. Someone who isn't homophobic wouldn't write something like this:

It's an important argument for those who oppose former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich's resignation, and it's an uphill battle considering they're saying that favoring a legal regime where two classes of people are granted different and unequal access to public institutions, access determined by their identities, is not at all based on antipathy towards one of those classes. It's a counterintuitive assertion, to say the least.

So you'd think Friedersdorf would develop and support it extensively. Instead, he writes this:

Opposition to gay marriage can be rooted in the insidious belief that gays are inferior, but is also commonly rooted in the much less problematic belief that marriage is a procreative institution, not one meant to join couples for love and companionship alone.*

That's why it's wrong to stigmatize all opponents of gay marriage as bigots, even if (like me) you'd find unobjectionable the forced resignation of a CEO who used anti-gay slurs, or declared that gays are inferior humans, or sought to deny gays even benefits unrelated to the definition of marriage, like the ability to be on a life partner's insurance. My position has always been that civil unions are not enough-that gays ought to have full marriage equality. But the pro-civil union, anti-gay marriage faction is instructive. Opposition to interracial marriage never included a large contingency that was happy to endorse the legality of black men and white women having sex with one another, living together, raising children together, and sharing domestic partner benefits, just so long as they didn't call it a marriage.

First, Friedersdorf says that some people think marriage is about procreation, so their opposition to same-sex marriage has nothing to do with gay people as such. Of course, opponents to same-sex marriage never mount campaigns against marriage rights for post-menopausal women or sterile men or straight couples that proudly declare they don't want children, so it's unlikely that this is anyone's actual reasoning.

Second, he's saying that there is a significant "pro-civil union, anti-gay marriage faction" that shows that at least some people are thinking about the word "marriage" and not about two classes of people. Again, this doesn't really prove anything, it just moves the argument around a little: these people Friedersdorf is describing want two unequal legal regimes for two classes of people. Even if their opposition is just about a single word, it's still the same mentality.

Alex Blazehttp://www.bilerico.com/2014/04/support_for_prop_8_implies_homophobia.php
http://www.bilerico.com/2014/04/support_for_prop_8_implies_homophobia.phpMediaFri, 11 Apr 2014 10:00:00 -0500http://www.bilerico.com/2014/04/support_for_prop_8_implies_homophobia.php#commentsNo, Young Gay Men Are More Likely to Use Condoms
.center { text-align: center; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; display: block; float:none; }
]]>One of the most annoying memes that I can remember ever since I got involved with LGBT stuff outside of college is this idea that it's gay teens and young adults who, because of the hormones and empty spaces between their ears, are not using condoms and are getting infected.

Why, if they had witnessed the 80's and 90's/didn't think they were young and invincible/would turn down the Beyonce and pick up a newspaper, then we would have those STDs licked.

Goddamn young people, always going on my property with their non-latex-wrapped penises....

I'm inspired to post about it now because I came across an article by someone I never heard of before, and its second sentence was something I've heard a lot before:

Young men are often the most prone to abandon safe sex in the heat of the moment, as they view the disease in a less-serious light than we do.

What annoyed me most about this idea back when I was actually young enough to have it applied to me was that it went against my actual lived experience. When it came to safe sex, it was always older men who needed to be reminded about it (often several times).

Yesterday, Catholic League president Bill Donohue was complaining about Guinness pulling its support from the St. Patrick's Day Parade, because organizers don't allow gay groups to march with signs in the annual event. Then he said he wanted to march in the NYC Pride parade, with a banner that says, "Straight is Great."

If gay people want to march in St. Patrick's Day parade, then they should let straight people march in Pride!

Alex Blazehttp://www.bilerico.com/2014/03/bill_donohue_wants_to_march_in_pride.php
http://www.bilerico.com/2014/03/bill_donohue_wants_to_march_in_pride.phpPoliticsFri, 21 Mar 2014 10:00:00 -0500http://www.bilerico.com/2014/03/bill_donohue_wants_to_march_in_pride.php#comments'I'm Not Homophobic': Bigots Sometimes Lie
.center { text-align: center; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; display: block; float:none; }
]]>Conor Friedersdorf has a column explaining to gay people that just because a business refuses to service gays doesn't mean that its owners are homophobic. If they're motivated by religion, he argues, then they're pious, and pious bigotry cannot be counted as bigotry. Further, if homophobes are not spewing bile in a state of constant anger, then gay people who are refused service are "misperceiving" (his word) people's attitudes.

There's a lot wrong with the column, starting with Friedersdorf's insistence that People Who Think Homosexuality Is Sin But Are Not Homophobic (PWTHISBARNHs) can't be hateful because they are nice to him, a straight man; and going to his complete confusion on the meaning of the word homophobia, which apparently does not include discrimination against gay people.

But others have responded to that already. I wanted to focus on the implication that homophobes' explanation of their actions, their claims that they don't feel any antipathy towards gays, should be accepted as the truth and any evidence to the contrary should be ignored. Frankly, these folks haven't earned that level of trust.

Alex Blazehttp://www.bilerico.com/2014/03/bigots_sometimes_lie.php
http://www.bilerico.com/2014/03/bigots_sometimes_lie.phpMediaFri, 07 Mar 2014 11:00:00 -0500http://www.bilerico.com/2014/03/bigots_sometimes_lie.php#commentsBeing Clear About LGBT Phobia
.center { text-align: center; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; display: block; float:none; }
]]>It's a few weeks old and I'm not going to link it, but here are a few paragraphs from a homophobic org's "action alert" about the Good Luck Charlie episode on the Disney Channel that had a kid being raised by two mommies:

Alerting all parents! If "Good Luck Charlie" goes through with introducing LGBT content, then the floodgates will be opened for all programs on the Disney Channel - a trend that will be almost impossible to stop.
...
Please send an email letter and urge Care.com to stop sponsoring the Disney Channel if it pushes the LGBT agenda on our children during the program "Good Luck Charlie."

The episode aired because even the conservative and sexist Disney corporation can see which way the wind is blowing.

But that's not what got my attention. Instead, the repeated use of "LGBT" by a hate group is what stood out. I'm old enough to remember when "homosexual" was the preferred term for hatred in the context of press releases and polite discourse, but, now that I think about it, this is definitely not the first time I've seen homophobes use that term.

I doubt it's as effective. Does anyone think that "the LGBT agenda" is as scary sounding as "the homosexual agenda"? The latter sounds like someone is going to try to molest your child, while the former at most plugs into vague resentment about multiculturalism.

Maybe they're trying to be inclusive now that transphobia has become a major rallying point for Christian conservatives. That would be odd, considering how their entire agenda is opposed to inclusion.

Alex Blazehttp://www.bilerico.com/2014/02/being_clear_about_lgbt-phobia.php
http://www.bilerico.com/2014/02/being_clear_about_lgbt-phobia.phpEntertainmentSat, 08 Feb 2014 13:00:00 -0500http://www.bilerico.com/2014/02/being_clear_about_lgbt-phobia.php#commentsAlec Baldwin Makes Straight People Uncomfortable
.center { text-align: center; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; display: block; float:none; }
]]>Video surfaced of Alec Baldwin - who had an MSNBC show for a month - calling a journalist a "cocksucking fag." Baldwin lied about what he said, then backtracked, and then claimed he didn't know "cocksucking" was an anti-gay slur (kind of like that woman who claimed she didn't know the n-word had anything to do with race). He has a long history of such comments, and MSNBC took the guy's show away, although we don't know why and it could have been because he wasn't getting good ratings.

Now, one thing that is sadly not surprising at all is that quite a few people have come to Baldwin's defense. A few straight people, like Joan Rivers and Wes Alwan, have made persuasive defenses like "Everybody's something, so why don't we all just calm down" and "It is just as ludicrous to condemn people for being afraid of or repulsed by homosexuality as it is to condemn them for having violent impulses." Some gay people think that his advocacy of same-sex marriage rights is enough to outweigh his propensity to go into homophobic tirades, and there isn't a direct response to that, all I can do is wonder why some gay people are so tolerant of being treated like dirt.

In short: discussing whether Baldwin's actions are homophobic is silly. They are. But why anyone would argue otherwise, now there's an interesting question.

Alex Blazehttp://www.bilerico.com/2013/12/alec_baldwin_makes_straight_people_uncomfortable.php
http://www.bilerico.com/2013/12/alec_baldwin_makes_straight_people_uncomfortable.phpMediaThu, 05 Dec 2013 13:30:00 -0500http://www.bilerico.com/2013/12/alec_baldwin_makes_straight_people_uncomfortable.php#commentsRuth Marcus: Speak Power to Truth
.center { text-align: center; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; display: block; float:none; }
]]>Ruth Marcus has made a career of saying that people in power may be wrong - she very, very much wants you to know she agrees that they're wrong - but here's a reason why it'd just be better if we all kept our mouths shut and just protected their undeserved privilege, just for fun. It's a hard job in an imperial court, playing good cop by acknowledging what people are thinking before finding creative reasons to dismiss them so that the menagerie of bad cops around her can yell at you for wearing jeans.

So Marcus wrote about Mary Cheney who finally acknowledged that her very powerful family isn't all that gay-friendly. Now, if there is an evil gene then the Cheneys have it, but for some reason this family keeps on getting rewarded even though there's no one who deserves happiness less than they do. Mary's sister Liz is running for Senate, and, by golly, we all have to make sure she gets that seat!

Mary and her wife took to Facebook to call Liz out for opposing same-sex marriage and basically saying that when she condescends to treat Mary like a human being, it's only because she pities Mary so much for being infected with Teh Gay and she counts it as her good deed of the day before washing all that icky compassion off her hands and putting puppies in a sack with a brick to throw in a river.

Ruth Marcus is having none of that. In short, her argument is: "It's OK for gays to want to get involved in politics, but do they have to do it in public? In front of the rest of us? And destroy the institution of the family in the process? There's nothing homophobic about raising this serious discussion." It refutes itself. But her point, in long, is a lot more fun.

I just happened upon and re-watched Boys Beware, the 1961 homophobic propaganda film shown in schools to make kids fear "homosexuals" kidnapping, raping, and murdering them.

One thing that struck me was just how victim-blamey the whole thing is. Yes, younger kids need to be told not to get into cars with people they don't know. But the message here isn't to not get in cars with strangers, but to watch out if strangers, in or out of cars, are too intimate or if they seem like they want something and to avoid isolated areas if sinister-looking people are around. I'm no expert in child development, but it seems rather demanding to ask anyone, much less a kid (I'm guessing this film was intended for an age group younger than the boys acting in it), to accurately profile a child molester.

Alex Blazehttp://www.bilerico.com/2013/10/vintage_homophobia_modern_victim_blaming.php
http://www.bilerico.com/2013/10/vintage_homophobia_modern_victim_blaming.phpMediaThu, 17 Oct 2013 11:00:00 -0500http://www.bilerico.com/2013/10/vintage_homophobia_modern_victim_blaming.php#commentsFive Reasons to Have Sex on the First Date
.center { text-align: center; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; display: block; float:none; }
]]>Jackie Pilossoph on the Huffington Post is trying to get people to not have sex on the first date. So, in the spirit of responding to her list -- not in the spirit of making people have sex on the first date; seriously, you know infinitely better than I do when you should be having sex -- here are five reasons to have sex on the first date.

Sex will be less awkward. Practice makes perfect, and that applies to sex too. If you want sex to get less awkward, avoiding it won't solve the problem.

Foreplay is better foreplay than waiting. I don't make a distinction between foreplay and Real Sex, but if it floats your boat.... I'd imagine, though, that if you do like foreplay, then foreplay is better foreplay than not doing foreplay and playing gin rummy instead.

What if it doesn't work out? Then you'd have dated this person for who knows how long without having sex!

Making your own sexual decisions without an invasive pop culture telling you you're wrong no matter what gives you self-esteem. You know what really builds self-confidence? Not slamming people online for making their own decisions about when to have sex. If a blogger is really concerned with her readers' self-esteem, then she wouldn't be telling her readers that they're too stupid and slutty to make the decision on their own.

Sex might make you fall in love. Which is good. Because love is good. Seriously, Jackie Pilossoph, love is a good thing.

Oh, but what if you find out you have nothing in common with this person after having sex? Oh my god, then you will have had a good experience with someone very different from you. That's so terrible, who would want to live in a world where people of vastly different backgrounds make each other happy?

It apparently has been a thing among conservatives going back to the 1930's, calling Keynes gay to discredit him. Brad Delong has quite a few quotations from conservatives saying, as he puts it: "Keynes was a perv and Keynesianism is pervy and Keynesians are perhaps perverts themselves."

To say that Keynes is an influential economist is an understatement. Macroeconomics wasn't a separate field until well after The General Theory was published, and his observations made it into most macro models that followed.

But conservatives don't like him. Conservatives who don't understand The General Theory hate him because his most famous policy implication was the government can do a lot to help the economy. Worse still, most people who say they hate Keynes don't understand the evidence, the reasoning, and the intuition that went into building the theoretical framework that makes government intervention in recessions the optimal response. I've even seen liberals over the last few days refer to The General Theory as an "ideology" or "philosophy," when it's about as scientific as one can get in economics. It's OK not to like his work, but at least engage the work.

I should take that back - conservatives who understand Keynes tend to hate him even more.

Alex Blazehttp://www.bilerico.com/2013/05/calling_keynes_gay_isnt_enough_anymore.php
http://www.bilerico.com/2013/05/calling_keynes_gay_isnt_enough_anymore.phpLivingMon, 06 May 2013 10:30:00 -0500http://www.bilerico.com/2013/05/calling_keynes_gay_isnt_enough_anymore.php#commentsYes, Some People Are Actually Against Divorce
.center { text-align: center; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; display: block; float:none; }
]]>One of the less talked about hobby horses of the marriage movement (the anti-gay one) is that they're actually against divorce for straight people. They'll make exceptions for rape and incest and life of the mother... I mean, domestic violence and adultery, but they really don't like the idea of people living with and making families with the people that they want to.

Divorce is popular since most people don't want the risk legally enforced "til death do us part" implies, so Republicans try to hide that religious right position in the same place that they hide the "ban contraception" stuff. But every now and then their hostility to divorce comes out:

Proving that once again the Republican Party is beyond parody, a bill being considered by the Iowa state House would "prohibit [married] parents of minor children from getting a 'no-fault' divorce" and would require married parents of minor children "to show a spouse was guilty of adultery, had been sent to prison on a felony conviction, had physically or sexually abused someone in the family, or had abandoned the family for at least a year."

Great idea! I can't think of something an abused spouse would rather do than to start a long legal proceeding against the person who is violent to them. The surprise is when "reasonable doubt" means that the victim is still married to a person who's probably angry that they were arrested and prosecuted.

All around great policy.

Again, no-fault divorce is awesome and it's a 20th century achievement that barely needs protection because of its obvious awesomeness. People should be allowed to divorce for whatever reason, on whatever whim, because the rest of us have no right to force anyone to stay married who doesn't want to be married.

It's something to think about the next time someone trots out the "straight people are already ruining marriage with divorce!" argument. No, dear, they're celebrating marriage by freeing themselves up for another one.

The alternative is to be like France, where I've met more than a few gay men still married to their wives from before coming out because divorce - even amicable divorce - is an expensive and onerous process. What interest the state has in keeping those couples together I can't begin to fathom.

Alex Blazehttp://www.bilerico.com/2013/03/yes_some_people_are_actually_against_divorce.php
http://www.bilerico.com/2013/03/yes_some_people_are_actually_against_divorce.phpPoliticsSun, 10 Mar 2013 12:00:00 -0500http://www.bilerico.com/2013/03/yes_some_people_are_actually_against_divorce.php#commentsThe Economics of Risky Sex & Love
.center { text-align: center; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; display: block; float:none; }
]]>Thinking some more about this column, I do like how Robert Frank suggests applying cost-benefit analysis to the quest to love and be loved. I just wish he did it more effectively.

Consider the enormous costs people pay with when it comes to seeking love and sex. Americans spend billions of dollars on dating and weight loss and beauty products and fancy toys and everything else people use to get others sexually interested in them, and it's impossible to count products not explicitly sold for dating but still get used that way anyway (like cars and food).

Add to that the time spent seeking romantic partners - it can be several hours a day for some people. They could earn a lot of money by taking on a part-time job or have lots of fun with a cheaper, less time-consuming hobby.

Then add in the cost of uncertainty: some people risk losing their family and job and respect from others when the sex and love a person wants isn't what others want for them. Not everyone takes these risks, but enough people do that it can't be ignored.

Frank doesn't get into it (his column would have been more interesting if he did), but one of the most fundamental concepts in economic theory is that the expected benefit has to exceed the expected cost for someone to do something. People don't buy things they don't think they'll like.

Proponents of a ban [on contraception] may just want teenagers to grow up in an environment where they aren't expected to sleep with the first classmate who hits on them. A ban, though, would cause enormous harm, and is an ill-advised strategy for creating such an environment. But the wish itself is hardly mysterious.

First: where exactly are teenagers expected to sleep with the first classmate who hits on them? Frank could at least say he's just talking about how some parents don't want their teens to have sex at all instead of implying that schools are little more than non-stop orgies, where rejecting others so impolite that you have to drop your pants the minute someone propositions you to make his point.

Alex Blazehttp://www.bilerico.com/2013/02/no_forcing_people_to_abstain_from_sex_is_mysteriou.php
http://www.bilerico.com/2013/02/no_forcing_people_to_abstain_from_sex_is_mysteriou.phpMediaMon, 18 Feb 2013 10:30:00 -0500http://www.bilerico.com/2013/02/no_forcing_people_to_abstain_from_sex_is_mysteriou.php#commentsFreezing Your Employees Should Be Illegal
.center { text-align: center; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; display: block; float:none; }
]]>On Monday, I saw someone in Indiana holding a sign in front of a parking lot for a pizza deal. I don't know if this person was a man or a woman or what race they were or anything about them - it was so cold they were all bundled up. It was cold, like 0 or minus 10 with the wind chill.

So not only was this person working on MLK Day, but they were risking their life to tell people about dollar off pizza (or whatever).

Two thoughts: First, what does this output (in the economic sense) add to the general welfare? If this person ended up in a hospital, would it have been worth it? Would it have been worse to give this person a paycheck (paid by the government, maybe) to stay home than to force them to work in the cold?

Second, since it was a day about dreaming, wouldn't it be nice to live in a world where responsible law enforcement officers could be called by a passing driver, and the cop would show up and give that person's employer a ticket?

Jobs aren't guaranteed, people are effectively required to work, so the employer/employee relationship is coercive. Abusing power, especially power that's encouraged by the state, should be illegal.

Fox's resident psychiatry pseudo-expert argues that college first-years have higher self-esteem than ever (except no) while doing worse at school than ever before (also no), which is enough to diagnose narcissism (ha ha no). And it's all the fault of video games and MTV, even though today's young people's parents grew up with those things too. The get-off-my-property crowd hasn't updated their cultural references in a few decades.

So young people are told by conservatives that they need to study harder and be more motivated to succeed today. If they don't, then anything bad that happens to them is entirely their fault and no one should help them. When they actually do study harder and say they're more motivated, conservatives ignore the results and then call young people deluded narcissists.

That's hatred.

Not that this entirely accounts for why young people don't like Republicans, but surely if conservatives stopped openly hating The Kids Today they could make some inroads.